and begin the process of deportation. >> as attorney general in the state of the florida that money could get dumped on my state. >> i don't blame you. it must not. look at arcticle one section 8 of the constitution what congress can do specific enumerated power that the government needs to deal with securing the border. that is the federal government's role and not the state's role. it is very important that the federal government pays for the costs that. is the burden. the cost every year 113 billion but the states are bearing 82 billion. the federal government needs to pay for the deportation cost. congresswoman michele bachmann republicans support tort reform. you are a leadership in limited government. there is a bill to allow the federal government dictate how the state judges are to try

medical mal practice cases and cap what awards can be given by juries under the state do you support that bill? >> i support tort reform absolutely. 45 lows lawsuits are out of control. there is an issue with the 10th amendment. some states implemented caps on the 45 lows lawsuits and lawsuits that came forward. one state is california. >> you support tort reform and so do i. but do you support federal tort reform that governs how states may conduct the medical practice trial. >> i can come out in support of that. this is an issue that is a fundmental issue and something i can support. >> okay. we'll continue with congresswoman michele bachmann after the break. stay with us. we'll be right back.

>> some critized the call as being symbolism. will that be enough to get the federal government out of education. >> i would abolish the department of the education and that's how i got in politics superintendents, especially in iowa. if i was able to repeal all of the federal education law and do away with the federal department of education and you wouldn't get the money that the federal government sends down to you, would you

take that deal? >> they said, absolutely we would take that deal. the amount of money we get from the government doesn't begin to cover the costs of the mandates they put on us. we didn't have a federal department of education before the late 1970s. so we can certainly get along without it. >> you said you would uholish the epa. as a practical meafert, how would you deal with pollution across state lines? >> we have 50epa's. every state has one. there are issues in the state. i think on a case by case basis, the federal government gets involved whether it is clean air or clean water or if it is on our international border and we need to deal with other nations. it is more on a case by case basis. what we can't have at the current department of epa, they have become a government to themselves almost. and they are changing the course of history every day.

>> i agree with you about the aggressivness -- the overaggressivness of the epa. you said on a case by case basis, you don't mean you would pass a law for every instance of a coal plant in ohio's pollution coming into pennsylvania, and then something else from one state to another, do you? >> that's right. >> is that what you intend? >> legislation is one thing. negotiation is another. i think a lot of these issues can be negotiated. if the two states that you mentioned, the two states can get together. >> but you cannot just negotiate without a legal foundation, and there by compel both sides to participate. you can't do that. so what is the -- if they won't negotiate, then what? >> you are making a very good point. i think when we send the power and the authority back to the states, that's the place to begin. there may be a need for new legislation that comes forward , or there may be a limited

role within another department to be able to take care of it. i am not opposed to the federal government. it is special -- certainly reasonable to deal with some of these issues, but let's look at what we are talking about with the epa. right now they want to impose a new tax because of cap and trade. they are changing our economy. they are literally writing the rules and taking over businesses because of what's happening with the epa because they are putting so much heavy burden and requirements -- >> you are talking to a crowd that are suing the epa in one way or another. >> what we were trying to get at is your alternative. i think you have probably -- >> and i am not opposed to new legislation to deal with that again. it is -- on a case by case basis or a very modified form. the current epa has to go. >> we are less than two minutes for this segment and pam, you have the next question. >> this is a practicing lawyer

congressman bachman. other than row versus wade what is the worst united states supreme court decision in the last 50 years? >> in the last 50 years i would say the all time worst was the dred scott decision. in the last 50 years there are so many it is hard to choose. i will go with the kilo decision. the kilo decision offended me tremendously. it was a government entity taking away the private property interest from one individual because it would benefit government in the form of revenue, and then giving that private property to another. that's a terrible decision. >> congresswoman, in that regard, what would you do from the federal government's perspective to protect private property? >> to protect private property? the federal government needs to stand up in terms of legislation, and also from the legal perspective. if there is a case that goes before the court, they need to follow the constitution, and they also need to have

reference with the declaration of independence. that's part of our government that we uphold private property rights. that hasn't happened a lot in recent years, but it must. >> we are in the final 30 seconds of the segments. do you have a question? >> kilo is one of my top ones as well. you expressed support for a federal human life amendment. why is it preferable to allowing the state to have their own policy on abortion? >> because life is the fundamental issue. if you go back to the declaration of independence we have inalienable rights. those are the rights god gives to us and not man. the reason the governments were instituted according to the declaration of independence was to protect the inalienable rights which includes life. >> thank you very much. we will also see the congresswoman at the end of the forum for her final minute. coming up, texas congressman ron paul and former massachusetts governor mitt romney as we continue our very

unique forum with the presidential candidates. we will be right back.

this is a special republican presidential forum. joining us now is congressman ron paul from texas. nice to have you.

>> good to be here. >> congressman, you advocate for pure constitutionalism. given that filter, what do you think are the primary domestic responsibilities of the federal government. >> domestic responsibilities? >> protecting the borders. providing a sound economy -- a sound currency. that's in the constitution very clearly. it is a major issue. really enforcing the bill of rights. they are very specific, and that is property rights as well as freedom of speech and all of those other things. those would be the major issues. the constitution overall would be a major issue as well. >> congressman, good evening to you. in 1995, we lost 168 oklahoma anes in a domestic terrorist attack. melissa houston, my secretary general, is a survival of the blast and spent many years after that utilizing tools of the patriot act fighting

domestic terrorism. you have come out opposed to the pay tree yekt -- patriot act based on privacy concerns, and i too share your concerns with respect to privacy. what thoughtful alternative do you have to prevent further acts of domestic terrorism in the future? >> you say your goal is preventing all crimes and all criminal acts. you destroy liberty by doing that. the patriot act, if it would have been called the repeal of the fourth amendment, it wouldn't have passed. that's essentially what that does. that's way too much sacrifice of liberty. but there are laws in the books for violent acts. if you think you can pass enough laws to prevent all crimes and all acts of violence, just think of the acts of violence that occur in our household. are they going to put cameras in every household? i don't think it is a lack of laws that is our problem. >> congressman, you don't

believe there needs to be a comprehensive law at the federal level equiping law enforcement to prevent terrorism in this country? >> i don't believe we need a comprehensive law at the federal level. i believe we need state law to prevent violence. the one law that we totally ignore, and that is that terrorism is a crime, and it is not a war. we have drifted off to be called, this is a war on terrorism, and it is a justification to pursue war. not only around the world, but even domestically. and so i would say it is a crime. the constitution i think is very clear. there is nothing in our constitution that says the violent act should be a prerogative of the government. they didn't offer a national police force. even today. if you are talking about criminal acts of violence, murder, manslaughter, robbery, that's all the state issued. the nationalization of law enforcement, i mean, we have already a hundred thousand

federal bureaucrats carrying guns. we don't need anymore federal policemen. and i think the problem isn't a lack of federal laws. >> congressman, what would you call the attacks right around the corner on the twin towers in new york city? what would you call those? >> that's an act of violence. >> is that an act of terrorism, congressman? >> it is a terrorist attack. and we do have responsibility from pre -- protecting our borders, but it is an act of terrorism. we should be checking our borders and finding out who is coming in. but we ought to understand that whole problem rather than just saying what we need is more federal policemen, and it is a lack of federal police activity and guns that will make us safer. if you don't understand the motivation and all of the problems of why we are facing this crisis and why people want to come here and kill us,

just more laws won't do it. this whole thing is all messed up because what we have been told for 10 years is that people want to come here and commit acts of terrorism against us because we are free and prosperous. as long as people believe that, believe me we are not going to solve the problem and we are not going to make people any safer. >> different topic. president obama has had the audacity to say the republican approach to the economy means dirt yes,irtier air and water and less people with health insurance. is that what less federal regulation means? >> no. matter of fact, i get charged with that all the time. i don't want the federal regulations, and most republican conservatives don't need or think we need more federal regulation. they say you will have people in the streets and no medical care. the whole thing is, if you don't have regulation -- say in the environment and different things or regulation on banking regulations,

actually the market is a real strict regulation -- it is a strict regulation. our problem today is when you write the regulations say on drugs, the drug companies get involved and they write the regulation. banking regulations are written by the banking community. they become the law. so it isn't the lack of regulation. but if you have the market. you have the property rights and the contract rights and you have bankruptcy laws. and those are strictly enforced. it wasn't a lack of regulations that caused the enron scandal, but it was the market that took care of it. those individuals were convicted in texas court for fraud, and they went to prison. no, we have to answer back. i think we do a lousy job on that. they are saying the liberals grabbed the moral high ground and say we are going to take care of anybody. people will be suffering and there won't be any medical care. it is up to us to argue the case that the markets can answer.

property rights can solve just about all of these problems much more than the bureaucrats in washington. >> we have to take a break at this . more with congressman ron paul right after this break. stay with us. financial advice is everywhere.

real, objective investing help? that's a little harder to find. but here's what i know -- td ameritrade doesn't manage mutual funds... or underwrite stocks and bonds. or even publish their own research. so, guidance from td ameritrade isn't about their priorities. it's about mine. straightforward guidance. that's what makes td ameritrade different. ♪ [ male announcer ] trade commission-free for 60 days. plus get up to $600 when you open an account.

texas congressman ron paul. for the next question, scott pry -- pruitt. >> you said on fox news sunday that medicare, medic cade and social security are unconstitutional. i presume that means you will eliminate those programs. how will you do it? >> if you think so. you all work on obamacare, and you talk about it being unconstitutional because there is a mandate. but how many other programs in medicine -- they are all mandates. do they not have to pay medicare taxes? i looked at article one section 8 and where does it say the government should be involved in education and medicine. the question is how do you get rid of it? >> how do you do it? >> you can't do that overnight. matter of fact, i go to extreme of saying that for the -- for those individuals who have been totally de pen

department, children and the el -- totally dependent, children, and there is a horrible budget crisis. it would be creating anarchy it would be so bad. if we wanted to save this country, we have to cut. i have a program where i want to cut a trillion dollars. a bunch comes from overseas, and a bunch comes from five departments. going back to the budget of 2006. actually, i would preserve some of the programs. when i present this program, i say for the purpose of phasing them out. for instance, my program actually allows people under 25 to get out of social security. but to cut that off and think you can do that overnight isn't going to work. you have to have a transition program. technically speaking they say, are they constitutional? where is the authority? i don't know where the authority s. there is no authority for one penny to run education.

i think that's why we are in such trouble. there is no respect at all for the constitution. >> congressman, you are very clear if you think they are unconstitutional. why would you sign a budget you think contains something unconstitutional? >> other than that, you have two choices, you can either work our way out of this, or you wait until it collapses and we have to rebuild it. i am just saying that you can't -- even on the federal reserve everybody knows my position on the federal reserve, and it is unconstitutional. i don't advocate you close down the federal reserve tomorrow. i have transition programs. and that makes a big difference. >> let me move to another topic. which comes first in your mind, the sovereignty of the people, the sovereignty of the states or the sovereignty of the federal government? and please put them in order. >> the people of the state and then the federal government, and very little for the federal government and none for international governments like the u.n and nato to get

authority for the things we do around the world. >> congressman, are there any amendments to the constitution that you believe are mistakes? >> that i believe what? >> are mistakes. >> are mistakes? >> yes. >> there was one -- >> try to keep it to a few. >> i am not quite hearing you. >> i said try to keep it to a few. >> oh, a few. and you said amendments to the constitution. well, one of the worst was the prohibition that lead to a horrible decade, and then we repealed that one. the repeal was very great. there is not -- i mean, obviously the bill of rights, those are amendments and they are great. the other ones are sort of not for me to get riled up about. i am so concerned about not

following the constitution we have on the property rights and the rule of law and the monetary issues and going to war issues. those are the kind of things i am concerned about in the constitution. >> we are in our final minute. >> short on time. quick question, if you could suggest every american read one book, what would it be? >> one book? excluding something religious oriented. >> it could be. >> well, i think to simplify things, to get a message out since we are talking about politics in the law, people if they want to read a short book to really wake them up on what the law should be they should read a book called "the law." if they read that and find out the moral principal behind the law saying that you as an individual can't do certain things. if you can't do it, the government can't do it. if you can't steel from your neighbor, you can't send the politicians to steel from your

neighbor. the law is a basic principal we are starting with and i think it will introduce a great idea to a lot of people. >> thank you, congressman ron paul. you can post your thoughts about the forum. we would love to hear from you. put it at the wall at facebook .com/huckabee show. coming up, our final canld debt, mitt rom -- candidate, mitt romney. stay with us. we will be right back. the employee of the month is... spark card from capital one. spark cash gives me the most rewards of any small business credit card. it's hard for my crew to keep up with 2% cash back on every purchase, every day. 2% cash back. that's setting the bar pretty high. thanks to spark, owning my own business has never been more rewarding. [ male announcer ] introducing spark the small business credit cards from capital one. get more by choosing unlimited double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day. what's in your wallet? this guy's amazing.

welcome back to huckabee. this is our special forum. joining us is mitt romney. governor, it is good to see and you thanks for joining us. >> thanks, mike. >> and i will turn you over to scott pruitt for the first question. >> governor, good evening. >> hi, scott, and thank you to you and to pam and ken for participating in this. it has been an interesting show to watch so far. i hope it stays that way. >> governor, you have traveled to oklahoma, and you know oklahoma is a leader in energy from oil and gas to coal to wind. so when the energy ceo's tell me your epa or your epa administrator may not be much different than the presidents now, what do you say to that? >> well, they don't know what i would do if i were the president of the united states. you know, one of my good friends is mike levit who was the epa administrator under

george bush. i asked some of the executives what it was like, and they said it was a lot better than it is today. i think the epa has gotten out of control for a simple reason. it is a tool in the hands of the president. to crush the private enterprise system and to have energy with the oil, gas, coal, and there is a real effort on some in the president's party that don't like the american enterprise system, and they are trying to do everything they can to impede the growth of our economy and our energy independence. and i look at the effort on the epa to stop -- to step in the way of fracking and to eliminate the potential in some states to have our access to natural gas and our oil, and say this is in an effort to say let's go solar and wind. let's raise the cost of energy dramatically. it is entirely opposite of the view. we need a federal government

that sees its job as helping the private sector grow and add jobs. >> you mentioned hydrolic manufacturing. the state -- the current epa administrator is marching toward having a federal government overseas. would you put a stop to that? >> absolutely. u hit the nail in the head. the epa and the extreme voices and the party are frustrated beyond belief that the states have the regulatory authority of refracking. and right now, i guess something close to 70% of the oil wells have been fracked. they have managed it well, but the epa wants to get in and grab more power. basically they will try and move the whole economy away from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and push it into the renewables. we all like the renewables. but renewables alone are not going to power this comple.

-- this economy. among other things, i would greet the epa out -- i would get the epa from carbon dioxidey emissions. that was not a pollute meant. -- pollute tent. it is one of the agencies most being used by this president to try and hold down, crush and insert the federal government into the life of the private sector. >> governor, in a general election debate. -- debate, president obama will say his healthcare law was based on your massachusetts model. what would be your response to the president in that debate? >> i sure look forward to that. i would say, mr. president, thank you for the compliment, but why didn't you give me a call? why didn't you pick up the phone and ask me what i would do differently and what i would do the same. >> well, let me ask you, what would you do differently? >> a lot of things. the bill i proposed was different than the final bill. some measures in the final bill i vetoed.

they were overridden by the legislature. i'm sure in the years that have passed some things have seemed to gone well and some things needed to be adjusted and improved. do i like to build overall? yes. am i proud of what we did for our state? yes. what the president has done is way beyond what we envisioned. we were trying to take care of the 8% of our population that didn't have insurance. the president is not just worried about the people wots insurance. obamacare is about taking over 100% of the people insurance in this country. >> you would acknowledge, you would agree that even when you are trying to take care of the 8%, what you did in that bill affected the entire industry in massachusetts, correct? >> it a limited way, if at all. for the 92% of people who already had insurance, nothing changed. they continued to get the insurance from the private insurance companies, and the 8% by the way also got private insurance. they didn't get government insurance.

they got private insurance. for the 92% that were already insurance i had, nothing changed. we hoped what we would do would bring down the cost of healthcare in a modest way. that didn't happen. some say it has come down a little bit, or the rate of growth has come down a little bit. but in terms of getting down the cost of healthcare, that's the real objective we have to be looking at at the federal level. >> governor romney, in 2008 you campaigned in favor of the federal no child left behind act. but more recently, have you stated that the federal government should get out of education. under a romney administration what role would the federal government play in setting education policy? >> well, let me say that i continue to support aspects of no child left behind. i am not looking to change that position in anyway. the federal government has a role to stand up to the federal teachers' unions. the federal teachers' unions are impeding the education of our kids by preventing cyber

learning and preventing choice this schools merit pay for the best teachers, and president bush recognized that the only way for us to determine which schools were succeeding and which were failing, which schools were succeeding and which were failing was to test our kids. the only way that can happen is for the federal government to stand up to the huge federal teachers' unions. he stood up to them. we don't have to have the federal role. education should be held at the local level. it should be managed and controled by the states, by the the localities and by the parents and the families, and not by the federal government. but the role of insisting that we will test our kids that was put in place by no child left behind was an effort by president bush to say stop to the teachers' unions. >> quickly, would you support federal assistance for school

lunch, pell grants and gi bills? >> the whole series of items there. in some cases yes, in some cases no. most of the programs that deal with the poor, and you mentioned pell grants or assistance for lunch. i look at a lot of programs. i will examine them one by one. you should craft the plans. it is different being poor in massachusetts than -- or mississippi or michigan. it is different from medicaid, but for housing vouchers and food stamps, and even for school lunch programs. >> governor, perhaps your next administration -- this administration starting, there may be several uh appointments to the u.s. supreme court. you said you want to point strict constructionists to the bench. what does that mean to you to

a point? >> i would like people who recognize that their job is to protect the constitution. i follow the constitution as written and intended. follow the laws of congress as written and intended. rather than having the supreme court see its role as springing from or departing from the constitution of laws. and i look at the opinions of the last several years by justices like roberts and elito and thomas and scalia. i want justices that are brilliant, strict constructionists who are able to convince their colleagues they are right on key issues, who share my values throughout, and i want to see people with an extensive track record either as jurists, or if they have been in the -- for instance, the academic profession. i want to see a real track record. i don't want to just take their word.

i want to see it in practice. >> governor romney, to change subjects, as you know there are countless illegal immigrants coming into my state in florida. given the federal government's complete failure to do their constitutional duty and protect my state in securing the border, what should florida do to address this problem? >> pam, my view is that states have a responsibility to care for the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens. and if the federal government is failing to fulfill their responsibility to enforce the immigration laws, the states should have to take action. i took action. there was an effort on the part of the legislature to pass a bill providing in state tuition to illegal immigrants. i vetoed that. there was a discussion of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. i actually empowered our state police to work with ice to be able to carry out federal immigration laws to make sure we found people who were in our state illegally, who

committed crimes and got them out of the country. i think we are going to have to recognize that the federal government has to stetson up and do its job. secure the border and crackdown on players. >> this question to ken. >> governor, other than seeing elections, is there any reason the labor law has to be run, or can it be eliminated and turned over to the states? >> that's a fair question. >> i hope so. >> exactly. i don't mean to be insulting. back in the days of law school and labor law classes and suggestions, one of the real questions was do we need federal labor law? that's where things have evolved. the first step we have to take is to completely revamp the national relations board, if not eliminate it altogether, and turn back to courts or to an agency with shorter reins. my own view is that states should be putting in place right to work laws to allow

the people of their states to participate and not join a union. >> governor, that sounds like a maybe on the getting rid of. >> 20 seconds left. >> at this time i would not oppose getting rid of all federal law. we have to rain in the power of the national labor relations board. my preference is return power and authority to the states. >> and we have to close it out at that point. every candidate has had exactly the same amount of time. governor romney, thank you for joining us tonight. up next, all six candidates coming back. their final thoughts on tonight's republican presidential forum.

each of the six candidates had equal time to answer our panel questions. now they are joining us all once again, and each of them have exactly one minute each to give us their final thoughts for tonight. now in the order you will see them was determined by a drawing prior to tonight's program. first up, governor mitt romney from massachusetts. governor romney? >> thank you, mike. this 2012 election is really going to be an election which presents a choice to the american people about what kind of america we will have.

historically, this has been what david brooks has called a merit-based society. individuals based on their education, risk taking and a little luck can have rewards based on success they achieve. that has lead us to be the strongest nation in the history of the earth. it is a nation of freedom and opportunity. president obama and his friends have a very different view for america. they want to see an entitled -based society where you take the rewards from some and spread it out to everybody else. and whereby the way the best rewards go to the people who do the spreading, the people in government. are we going to be a free society with free individuals pursuing their own course with free enterprises or a nation governed by the government. i am convinced this is a time where america will have to make that choice. i spent my life in the private sector. i know how to make this country strong and great by applying the principals that always made us great. thank you. >> thank you, governor romney. next, governor rick perry of texas. governor perry?

>> mike, thank you. and boy, it has been a wild and wooly ride in this primary. i suspect that will stay the same. i hope everyone will give me a second look and look at my plan that cuts taxes and balances the budget and gets america working again. and it overhauls washington. in one of the ways it does that, we will put a part-time congress in place. think about that. send it back to their own districts to have a real job working in their home districts. that's the way you make a difference. i have lived a purpose-driven life, and our country is in trouble and needs us working together to take our country back. so i hope, again, that you will take a look at my plan and give me that second opportunity. i will promise you this, that every day i will work to make washington, d.c. as incon sequential in your life as i can. god bless you, thank you for your support and your vote. >> thank you, governor rick

perry. our next candidate is congressman ron paul of texas. congressman paul? >> i thank you, mike. tonight we talked a lot about the federal government with the state government. and we realize it is such a mess. we turned the constitution on its fed. the -- on its heads. it is a consequence of our carelessness with the constitution. our congresses, our courts as well as the executive branch have taken over too much of the power. now it falls on the states because they are suffering the consequences, and the states have this responsibility to do something about it. the one issue we have to revisit because the founders understood it, and that's the principal of null law pho location. if the --nullification. i would respond in a favorable way of reinstituting the null law pho location.

the states have to nullify this. it would stop all of the powers and the privileges from the states to the government. >> thank you very much, congressman ron paul. our next candidate is speaker newt gingrich. speaker gingrich? >> i want to thank you and the attorneys general for what is a very useful evening where people can look at the issues and see some very, very intelligent professional people asking some very good questions. this may be the most important election since 1860. eight years of barack obama would be a disaster. if he gets re-elected with this economy, this deficit, these problems, he will think it vindicates his radicalism and his commitment to fundamentally change america. we need your help because this is a big election. we have changes to make that are so big not one president can make them alone.

if i tell you to vote for me you will go home and say i hope newt fixes it. i want you to vote with me. we have to stand shoulder to shoulder to get congress to do the right thing. i look forward to working with you, and i want to thank you and the attorneys general for what i think was a very, very useful evening. >> thank you, speaker gingrich. our next candidate is congresswoman michele bachmann. congresswoman? >> well, this is the most important election of our life stime. -- life lifetime. we have a chance to take our country back in 2012. we were promised in 2008 hope and change. we didn't get hope and change in the way we thought we would. this is our chance to have real hope and real change as president of the united states, i am going to unite our country. i am going to grow the economy. i know how to do that as a tax attorney and also as a business owner. i think more importantly we have to realize we have some

hard, significant work to do. that hard work will payoff. it will payoff in the form of millions of new jobs being created. it will payoff in terms of growing the economy, legalizing the american energy production and bringing down the price of gasoline. we can do all of this and have the hope that we want for our children. we can do it if we stand together and unite our country. >> thank you, congresswoman. our final candidate we will hear from is senator rick sontorum. senator? >> thank you. it is great to be with you tonight. you were a great warrior for faith and family on the campaign trail four years ago. i know everybody said we need a truce on those issues. we need to focus on creating jobs and tackling the huge government that is spending too much and driving our country into bankruptcy. those are absolutely right. but you might know what is at

the heart of this. america is a moral enterprise and we are sick from the inside when it comes to the state of the family and the state of the moral enterprise that is america. when we have thousands of children being aborted every day, and we see marriage being attacked and falling you -- falling apart. a truce is not a truce. it is a surrender. ladies and gentlemen, i will not surrender the values of this country. i will stand and defend america. >> my thanks to all of these candidates. we will be back with some final thoughts. hope you will stay with us. [ male announcer ] new vicks nature fusion cold & flu syrup.

flavored with real honey. powerful cold medicine that leaves out artificial flavors and dyes and instead uses something more natural, honey. new vicks nature fusion cold & flu. ♪

attorneys general.

thank all of you for being with us. final thoughts first with ken. >> well, governor, i think this was successful in focusing on the difference between the federal government and the states and the balance between the two. nobody bonned here. -- bombed here, but some people really shined. they are commited to reining in the federal government as it relates to our state. >> we heard more about the constitution than every other debate combined. we heard substantive conversations without fighting, so thank you for puting on this debate. >> and for that reason, governor, it was a wonderful success. we heard from our candidates they would be different. it is exciting. >> i thank all of you for being here. i want to thank you for joining us. it has been a historic night to have all of the candidates here and to give them equal time and give them time so they talked about the issues and they did not talk about each other. i hope you have enjoyed it. it has been a meaningful and

up substantive debate and maybe one that could become a model for the future. i know what it is like to be on their side of it, and all of them did an outstanding job. here is a reminder, the next fox news presidential debate will be on december 15th at 9:00 p.m. eastern. brett bier will be serving as moderator. now from new york for this special edition of "huckabee" this is mike huckabee, good this is mike huckabee, good night and god bless. this is mike huckabee, good night and god bless. do you have an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation, or afib, that's not caused by a heart valve problem? are you taking warfarin to reduce your risk of stroke caused by a clot? you should know about pradaxa. an important study showed that pradaxa 150mg reduced stroke risk 35% more than warfarin. and with pradaxa, there's no need for those regular blood tests. pradaxa is progress. pradaxa can cause serious, sometimes fatal, bleeding. don't take pradaxa if you have abnormal bleeding,

and seek immediate medical care for unexpected signs of bleeding like unusual bruising. pradaxa may increase your bleeding risk if you're 75 or older, have kidney problems or a bleeding condition, like stomach ulcers. or if you take aspirin products, nsaids, or blood thinners. tell your doctor about l medicines you take, any planned medical or dental procedures, and don't stop taking pradaxa without your doctors approval, as stopping may increase your stroke risk. other side effects include indigestion,stomach pain, upset, or burning. if you have afib not caused by a heart valve problem, ask your doctor if pradaxa can reduce your risk of a stroke. for more information or help paying for pradaxa, visit pradaxa.com. confidence, with depend in color. now available in gray. looks and fits like underwear. same great protection. depend. good morning. great day.